When the Numbers Don’t Add Up – Why Man Shouldn’t Decide Woman’s Fate

Yesterday afternoon, the House of Representatives voted 240-185 to block federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, “The time has come to respect the wishes of the majority of Americans who adamantly oppose using taxpayer dollars for abortions.”

Men have unwaveringly set history’s political agenda. In too many places, for too many years, on too many separate occasions, man’s superiority complex has superseded woman’s unshakable humility. Of course, there are exceptions. But in the grand scheme of things, men have suppressed or out-shouted the female voice.

In Biblical times, men set the rules. In literature, male authors set the scene. In the workforce, men set (and collected) the salaries. But a woman’s job in America shouldn’t be – and isn’t – to stand by and set the table; it’s to set the agenda.

Since Cantor brought up the topic, let’s discuss majorities. At the risk of detracting from the essence of the argument, I won’t even take into account outside social, religious, or political arguments. Simply consider the following.

Women make up the majority of this country, and men make up eighty-two percent of congressional representation. The majority of women who opt to abort their pregnancies are black and Hispanic, and eighty five percent of congress is white. The majority of women who choose abortions are are in their twenties and thirties, and the average age of a senator is sixty, and that of a congressman is fifty. The majority of women who choose abortions make low incomes and cannot afford the economic burden of another child, and the current salary of an average member of congress is $174,000 a year – out of the pockets of Mr. Cantor’s oh-so-coveted taxpayers. (Cantor himself nets a whopping $193,400 annually.)

Sound like a crowd who should be markedly narrowing women’s options, deciding women’s fates, or determining the extent of women’s rights?

For a gang whose principle goal is to take issue with government involvement in the personal lives of ordinary citizens, these people are wading into dangerous waters. ‘Pro-Life’ politicians like Eric Cantor and Mike Pence drip with the kind of sanctimonious hypocrisy that is otherwise reserved for quixotic Disney villains.

Every woman in the world – and certainly in the freest nation on earth – has the God-given right to decide the fate of her own body, look out for the welfare of her own family, and make decisions that are influenced and exercised by her own free will. The decision simply does not belong to the Republican leadership – or any political party, for that matter. In actions like the one taken on the House floor yesterday, these men verge on territory that simply doesn’t belong to them – territory that belongs to the individual woman. And no one else.

I understand the argument, but you’re missing their entire position.
It is not that they are making a decision for someone, but preventing from having someone pay for a decision that they do not believe in. For these pro-lifers, they are essentially subsidizing murders. If you were to discover that the nation was subsidizing stabbing, would you demand it be stopped? Of course you would. To those people, it’s the same thing; protecting the money of their constituents from being, in their opinion, improperly used. And this is in no way preventing a woman from doing what she wants–there is no ban on abortion–it is just ending federal funding for it. Stop overblowing the issue.

Evan I’d say this is one of the more heartless posts I’ve seen. A majority of the country does not agree with both wars we are in, maybe we should cut all funding for that. Many are opposed to waterboarding and tax cuts for people who don’t deserve them. The Americans don’t agree on a single issue in this country so your argument is automatically invalid. Also, this issue is underblown, if anything.

Did I say I was for war or waterboarding? And the tax cuts cost you no money, so that argument is invalid. You are talking to a Libertarian, not a Republican, so I believe in a very, very limited government that exists principally for the common defense. That’s #1: know your audience.
And this issue is absolutely overblown, although that is my fault for not being clear on what “the issue” is. “The issue” is funding for Planned Parenthood; a ban on abortion would be a very big issue, indeed. There is no ban on abortion. No one is deciding anyone’s fate, just not making anyone pay for another person’s choice regarding their fate. This is merely cutting funding for a program, in this case Planned Parenthood. It says on their site that they provide abortions:http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion-4260.asp
Therefore, the government actually IS funding abortions. One more factcheck…we are no longer at war with Iraq. That’s #2.
Your words are very vitriolic and melodramatic. They jumpt the gun, and you probably spent about 3 seconds reading the comment before you formed an opinion. Content aside, emotional rhetoric seems to be working well for you in terms of how it’s sounding.

The woman’s own body…. until there is another life inside of it. Honestly, it makes me sad that I have to see my generation make such poor choices and then demand the government to provide them some way out. You’re right, it should be the woman’s choice to murder her unborn child, not the government’s. In no way would I ever want my tax dollars going toward providing for such a disgraceful act. People need to learn to take responsibility for their actions.